Sociocultural Institute. General concept of socio-cultural institutions, functions

Socio-cultural institutions - one of the key concepts of socio-cultural activities (SKD). In the broadest sense, it extends to the spheres of social and socio-cultural practice, and also applies to any of the many subjects interacting with each other in the socio-cultural sphere.

Socio-cultural institutions are characterized by a certain direction of their social practice and social relations, a characteristic mutually agreed system of expediently oriented standards of activity, communication and behavior. Their emergence and grouping into a system depend on the content of the tasks solved by each individual socio-cultural institution.

Among economic, political, domestic and other social institutions differing from each other in the content of activity and functional qualities, the category of socio-cultural institutions has a number of specific features.

From the point of view of the functional-target orientation, Kiseleva and Krasilnikov single out two levels of understanding of the essence of socio-cultural institutions. Accordingly, we are dealing with two of their major varieties.

The first level is normative. IN this case a socio-cultural institution is considered as a normative phenomenon, as a set of certain cultural, moral, ethical, aesthetic, leisure and other norms, customs, traditions that have historically developed in society, uniting around some basic, main goal, values, needs.

It is legitimate to refer to socio-cultural institutions of the normative type, first of all, the institution of the family, language, religion, education, folklore, science, literature, art and other institutions that are not limited to the development and subsequent reproduction of cultural and social values or the inclusion of a person in a certain subculture . In relation to the individual and individual communities, they perform a number of extremely significant functions: socializing (socialization of a child, adolescent, adult), orienting (assertion of imperative universal values through special codes and ethics of behavior), sanctioning (social regulation of behavior and protection of certain norms and values based on legal and administrative acts, rules and regulations), ceremonial and situational (regulation of the order and methods of mutual behavior, transmission and exchange of information, greetings, appeals, regulation of meetings, meetings, conferences, activities of associations, etc.).

The second level is institutional. Socio-cultural institutions of an institutional type include a numerous network of services, departmental structures and organizations directly or indirectly involved in the socio-cultural sphere and having a specific administrative, social status and a certain public purpose in their industry. This group includes cultural and educational institutions directly , arts, leisure, sports (socio-cultural, leisure services for the population); industrial and economic enterprises and organizations (material and technical support of the socio-cultural sphere); administrative and management bodies and structures in the field of culture, including legislative and executive authorities; research and scientific-methodical institutions of the industry.

In a broad sense, a socio-cultural institution is an actively operating subject of a normative or institutional type that has certain formal or informal powers, specific resources and means (financial, material, personnel, etc.) and performs an appropriate socio-cultural function in society.

Any socio-cultural institution should be considered from two sides - external (status) and internal (substantive). From an external (status) point of view, each such institution is characterized as a subject of socio-cultural activity, possessing a set of legal, human, financial, and material resources necessary to perform the functions assigned to it by society. From an internal (substantive) point of view, a socio-cultural institution is a set of expediently oriented standard patterns of activity, communication and behavior of specific individuals in specific socio-cultural situations.

Each socio-cultural institution performs its own characteristic socio-cultural function. The function (from Latin - execution, implementation) of a socio-cultural institution is the benefit that it brings to society, i.e. it is a set of tasks to be solved, goals to be achieved, services to be rendered. These features are very versatile.

There are several main functions of socio-cultural institutions.

First and essential function socio-cultural institutions is to meet the most important vital needs of society, i.e. without which society cannot exist as such. It cannot exist if it is not constantly replenished by new generations of people, acquire means of subsistence, live in peace and order, acquire new knowledge and pass it on to the next generations, deal with spiritual issues.

No less important is the function of socialization of people, carried out by almost all social institutions (the assimilation of cultural norms and the development of social roles). It can be called universal. Also, the universal functions of institutions are: consolidation and reproduction of social relations; regulatory; integrative; broadcasting; communicative.

Along with the universal, there are other functions - specific. These are functions that are inherent in some institutions and are not characteristic of others. For example: establishing, restoring and maintaining order in society (the state); discovery and transfer of new knowledge (science and education); obtaining means of subsistence (production); reproduction of a new generation (the institution of the family); conducting various rituals and worship (religion), etc.

Some institutions perform the function of stabilizing the social order, while others support and develop the culture of society. All universal and specific functions can be represented in the following combination of functions:

1) Reproduction - Reproduction of members of society. The main institution that performs this function is the family, but other socio-cultural institutions are also involved in it, such as the state, education, and culture.
2) Production and distribution. Provided by economic - socio-cultural institutions of management and control - authorities.
3) Socialization - the transfer to individuals established in this society patterns of behavior and methods of activity - institutions of the family, education, religion, etc.
4) The functions of management and control are carried out through the system social norms and prescriptions that implement the corresponding types of behavior: moral and legal norms, customs, administrative decisions, etc. Socio-cultural institutions govern the individual's behavior through a system of rewards and sanctions.
5) Regulation of the use of power and access to it - political institutions
6) Communication between members of society - cultural, educational.
7) Protection of members of society from physical danger - military, legal, medical institutions.

Each institution can perform several functions at the same time, or several socio-cultural institutions specialize in the performance of one function. For example: the function of raising children is performed by such institutions as the family, the state, the school, etc. At the same time, the institution of the family performs several functions at once, as noted earlier.

Functions performed by one institution change over time and can be transferred to other institutions or distributed among several. So, for example, the function of education, together with the family, was previously carried out by the church, and now schools, the state and other socio-cultural institutions. In addition, in the days of gatherers and hunters, the family was still engaged in the function of obtaining means of subsistence, but at present this function is performed by the institution of production and industry.

Religion as an element of culture

2. Religion as sociocultural institute

Religion is a necessary component of social life, including the spiritual culture of society. It performs in society a number of important sociocultural functions. One of these functions of religion is ideological or meaningful. In religion as a form of spiritual exploration of the world, the mental transformation of the world is carried out, its organization in the mind, in the course of which a certain picture of the world, norms, values, ideals and other components of the worldview are developed that determine the relationship of a person to the world and act as guidelines and regulators of his behavior.

Religious consciousness, unlike other worldview systems, includes an additional mediating formation in the “world-man” system - the sacred world, correlating with this world its ideas about being in general and goals human being.

However, the function of a religious worldview is not only to draw a person a certain picture of the world, but above all, thanks to this picture, he can find the meaning of his life. That is why the ideological function of religion is called meaning-giving or the function of "meanings". According to the definition of the American sociologist of religion R. Bella, “religion is a symbolic system for the perception whole world and ensuring the contact of the individual with the world as a whole, in which life and actions have certain meanings. A person becomes weak, helpless, is at a loss if he feels emptiness, loses understanding of the meaning of what is happening to him.

Knowing a person why he lives, what is the meaning of the events that take place, makes him strong, helps to overcome life's hardships, suffering, and even to meet death with dignity, since these sufferings, death are filled with a certain meaning for a religious person.

The legitimizing (legitimizing) function is closely connected with the ideological function of religion. The theoretical substantiation of this function of religion was carried out by the prominent American sociologist T. Parsons. In his opinion, a socio-cultural community is not able to exist if a certain restriction of the actions of its members is not provided, setting them within certain limits (limitation), observing and following certain legal patterns of behavior. Specific patterns, values and norms of behavior are developed by the moral, legal and aesthetic systems. Religion, on the other hand, carries out legitimization, that is, the justification and legitimization of the existence of the value-normative order itself. It is religion that answers the main question of all value-normative systems: are they the product of community development and, therefore, are relative in nature, can change in different sociocultural environments or they have a supra-social, supra-human nature, "rooted", based on something imperishable, absolute, eternal. The religious answer to this question determines the transformation of religion into the basic basis not of individual values, norms and patterns of behavior, but of the entire socio-cultural order.

Thus, the main function of religion is to give the norms, values and patterns of mastery the nature of the absolute, unchanging, independent of the conjuncture of the spatio-temporal coordinates of human existence, social institutions, etc., rooting human culture in the transcendent. This function is realized through the formation of a person's spiritual life. Spirituality is the area of human connection with the Absolute, with Being as such. Religion makes this connection. It has a universal cosmic dimension. The emergence and functioning of religion is a person's response to the need for balance and harmony with the world. Religion gives a person a sense of independence and self-confidence. A believing person, through his faith in God, overcomes the feeling of helplessness and insecurity in relation to nature and society.

From the standpoint of religious spirituality, it is argued that the forces that govern the world cannot completely determine a person, on the contrary, a person can become free from the forced influence of the forces of nature and society. It contains a transcendent principle in relation to these forces, which allows a person to be freed from the tyranny of all these impersonal or transpersonal forces. Thus, religion affirms the priority of spirituality over social, aesthetic and other value orientations and regulators, opposing them to the worldly, social orientation of value, faith, hope, love.

Along with these fundamental functions of religion, integrative and disintegrative functions are noted. The famous French sociologist E. Durkheim compared religion as an integrator of sociocultural systems with glue, since it is religion that helps people to realize themselves as a spiritual community, fastened common values and common goals. Religion gives a person the opportunity to self-determine in the socio-cultural system and thereby unite with people who are related in customs, views, values, and beliefs. In the integrative function of religion, E. Durkheim attached particular importance to joint participation in cult activities. It is through cult that religion constitutes society as a socio-cultural system: it prepares the individual for social life, trains obedience, strengthens social unity, maintains traditions, arouses a sense of satisfaction.

The reverse side of the integrating function of religion is the disintegrating one. Acting as a source of socio-cultural unity on the basis of certain values, normative attitudes, dogma, cult and organization, religion simultaneously opposes these communities to other communities formed on the basis of a different value-normative system, dogma, cult and organization. This opposition can serve as a source of conflict between Christians and Muslims, between Orthodox and Catholics, etc. Moreover, these conflicts are often deliberately inflated by representatives of certain associations, since conflict with "foreign" religious organizations promotes intra-group integration, hostility with "strangers" creates a sense of community, encourages you to seek support only from your own.

The basis of religion is the cult system. Therefore, the formation of religion as a social institution should be presented as a process of institutionalization of religious cult systems.

In primitive society, cult activities were woven into the process material production and social life, and the performance of cult rites has not yet been singled out as an independent type of activity. As noted in the ethnographic literature, the Australians, who were delayed at a primitive stage of development, did not have a professional clergy. However, as social life becomes more complex, specialists in carrying out cult actions begin to stand out: sorcerers, shamans, etc. e. In Malaysia, where the level of development is higher than in Australia, professional priests have already emerged, who should not yet be characterized as a special social stratum, but only as a kind of professional group engaged in the same type of activity.

The next stage in the process of institutionalization is associated with the emergence of a system of social organization, in which community leaders, tribal elders and other figures who carry out management functions in them simultaneously played a leading role in religious life communities As noted by the German historian I.G. Bahoven. V Ancient Greece at the stage of decomposition of the tribal system, the military leader was at the same time the high priest. This is due to the fact that the entire social life at this stage was sacralized. All the most important events intra-communal life and inter-communal relations were accompanied by the performance of cult actions. However, here there is still a coincidence of religious and social community.

The formation of an early class society leads to a significant complication of social life, including religious beliefs, as well as to change the social functions of religion. The task of ensuring the regulation of the thoughts and behavior of people in the interests of the ruling classes, proving the supernatural origin of the power of the rulers, comes to the fore. And then relatively independent these themes of cult activities begin to form - worship and, along with it, the organization of clergy - priestly corporations.

As social relations and ideas become more complex, the entire social system, including the religious superstructure, is transformed and becomes more complex. The complication of public consciousness and social institutions, which is also associated with the complication of religious consciousness and cult activity, leads to the fact that the latter can no longer function within the framework of the former synthetic relations and institutions. Gradually, along with the self-determination of other superstructured systems, the self-determination of the religious system occurs. This process is connected with the constitution of religious organizations.

The most important goal of religious organizations is the normative impact on their members, the formation of certain goals, values, ideals in them. The implementation of these goals is achieved through the performance of a number of functions, the development of a systematized dogma, the development of systems for its protection and justification, the management and implementation of religious activities, the control and implementation of sanctions over the implementation of religious norms, maintaining relations with secular organizations, the state apparatus, etc. .

The emergence of religious organizations is objectively due to the development of the process of institutionalization, one of the consequences of which is the strengthening of the systemic qualities of religion, the emergence of its own form of objectification of religious activities and relations. The decisive role in this process was played by the formation of a stable social stratum, which opposes the bulk of believers-clergymen, who become the heads of religious institutions and who concentrate in their hands all the activities for the production, transmission of religious consciousness and regulation of the behavior of the mass of believers.

In a developed form, religious organizations represent a complex centralized and hierarchical system - the Church.

The internal structure of such an institution is an organizationally formalized interaction of various systems, the functioning of each of which is associated with the formation social organizations and institutions that also have the status of social institutions. In particular, at the level of the Church, there is already a clear separation between the governing and managed systems. The first system includes a group involved in the development, preservation and processing of religious information, coordination of religious activities and relations proper, behavior control, including the development and application of sanctions. The second, controlled, subsystem includes a mass of believers.

Between these subsystems there is a system of normatively formalized, hierarchically consistent relations that allow for the management of religious activities. The regulation of these relations is carried out with the help of the so-called organizational and institutional norms. These norms are contained in the statutes and regulations of confessional organizations. They determine the structure of these organizations, the nature of the relationship between believers, clergy and governing bodies. religious associations, between clergymen of various ranks, between the governing bodies of organizations and their structural subdivisions, regulate their activities, rights and obligations.

Analysis of the implementation and role of museum projects on the example of the Federal State Budgetary Institution of Culture "State Russian Museum"

Art and religion as a sociocultural phenomenon

Culture and education in the era of Catherine II

Smolny Institute Education Ekaterina On the left bank of the Neva bend, at the end of Suvorovsky Prospekt and Shpalernaya Street, stands the light and graceful Smolny Cathedral, looking up, crowning the ensemble of buildings belonging to it...

Culture as a measure of human development

In the XX century. there was a crisis not only in the field of material, but also spiritual life. A new form of socio-cultural crisis has also acquired a global character. It was in this century that mankind twice experienced the horror of world wars ...

Science as a form of culture

During this process, firstly, social institution science with its inherent system of values and norms, and, secondly, in one form or another, a correspondence is established between this system and the normative-value system of culture ...

Pitirim Sorokin: cultural dynamics and the evolution of cultural styles

“Cultural processes are the goal-oriented life activity of people and are the implementation of a more or less typical sequence of procedures: people's understanding of their interests and needs ...

Support and development of reading for children in the library by means of bibliography

The undoubted value of the children's library today lies in the attitude towards each child as a unique, inimitable personality...

Religion as an element of culture

Religion is a necessary component of social life, including the spiritual culture of society. It performs a number of important sociocultural functions in society. One of these functions of religion is the ideological ...

The Role of Libraries in Society

In the modern social structure, there is a growing need for the institutionalization of communicative activity, which can induce, on the one hand ...

Russian fashion XVII-XVIII centuries. Traditional and European clothes in Russia

In the 17th century An extremely important process in culture began to take place - its secularization. Until the 17th century it was the monasteries and churches that were engaged in book writing, painting and music. The medieval idea of the sinfulness of bodily beauty was questioned...

Smolny Institute and Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum - Pedagogical Principles of Education of a New Generation of Russians

Theater of Ancient Greece

Drama was born in Greece in the 6th century. BC, when the slave system was finally established. The collapse of the tribal system led almost throughout Hellas to the creation of city-states (polises), which were communities of free citizens ...

The phenomenon of collecting

Awareness of the phenomenon of art collecting, as well as collecting in general, is combined with the problem of scientific interpretation of a specific museum approach to reality...

In the artistic environment, curating is a historically formed institution. The end of the 20th century, the 1990s, became the culmination of the formation of the figure of the curator. It was during this period that the figure of a curator, especially an independent...

The phenomenon of curatorial activity in the world artistic culture late XX - early XXI century

The article is devoted to revealing the role of historical experience in social life. The author distinguishes three types of perception of historical experience: historical idealism, historical nihilism, historical realism. The proposed typological triad is considered as a tool for analyzing social consciousness, the degree of development of a realistic attitude towards historical experience - as an indicator of the society's ability to self-development. The conclusion is made about the lack of historical realism in modern Russian society.

Keywords: historical experience, historical idealism, historical nihilism, historical realism, reflection, dialectics.

The article is devoted to the identification of the role of the historical experience in social life. The author distinguishes three types of perception of the historical experience: historical idealism, historical nihilism, and historical realism. This typological triad is seen as a tool of analysis of social consciousness, the development of a realistic attitude to his-torical experience - as an indicator of society's ability to self-development. The author makes conclusions about the deficit of historical realism in the modern Russian society.

keywords: historical experience, historical idealism, historical nihilism, historical realism, reflation, dialectic.

Sociocultural institution is a capacious concept. In its most general sense, it can be defined as the set of social norms and cultural patterns by which existence and continuity are maintained. social structures. Based on this definition, the historical experience of society can be positioned as one of the sociocultural institutions. The latter can be represented as a certain value-semantic (normative) system, one way or another regulating social relations, influencing the adoption of socially significant decisions, acting as the most important element of socialization and social identification of the individual.

By historical experience, it seems, one should understand the ideas about the past that exist in society, which can be “cast” both in the form of irrational mythological images and in the form of rational logical-conceptual knowledge. V. V. Alekseev defines historical experience as “a concentrated expression of the social practice of the past and the functioning of society in the environment, focused on identifying the patterns of social development, on obtaining knowledge that provides an increase in the validity of solutions to contemporary problems” . It is important to understand that historical experience is not just a memorial exhibit, it is a strategic resource of society that helps to solve pressing problems and form effective life programs. Historical experience is a necessary component of social life, however, its role (function) in society can be different: it can act as main voice or as an echo in the complex texture of social existence; it can be a force that consolidates society, or a force that divides it; Finally, historical experience can serve as a stimulus for the self-development of society or as a brake blocking this kind of self-development. The role of historical experience in society is determined primarily by the attitude towards it existing in this society.

There seem to be three main positions regarding the perception of historical experience, we will designate them as historical idealism, historical nihilism, historical realism.

Historically primary in relation to historical experience is the position of historical idealism. The essence of this position lies, firstly, in the mythologization of cultural experience, as a result of which historical knowledge is torn off from reality, “cast” into the form of emotionally colored images; secondly, in its sacralization associated with the comprehension of historical experience as knowledge of the sacred, cult; thirdly, in the idealization of historical experience, expressed in its absolutization as knowledge of the perfect, eternal, unchanging, infallible and not subject to revision. The idealization of historical experience turns into its transformation into a kind of closed value-semantic system, which, as a rule, limits the historical horizon to a series of events associated with the era of the golden age.

Historical idealism is a position that is not critical, but apologetic, not rational, but emotional; its supporters tend to extrapolate historical experience to the present, qualifying it as a set of patterns, standards of behavior and activity. Historical idealism is an attribute of traditional culture, the ideological basis of which is the attitude to the world as an unshakable condition for human existence, as a set of requirements that must be met. In essence, these requirements are nothing but tradition, and the latter, in turn, is some kind of frozen, concentrated and sublimated historical experience. For example, E. S. Markaryan defines cultural tradition as a group experience expressed in socially organized stereotypes, which is accumulated and reproduced in various human groups through spatio-temporal transmission. According to M. Mead, a synonym for traditional culture is post-figurative culture, which is characterized as a culture that is alien to awareness and doubts about the existing historical experience, which is accepted as an unshakable postulate: “The past of adults turns out to be the future of each new generation; what they have lived is a blueprint for the future for their children.” Historical idealism comes from the cultural archaic. Archaic man is inherent in the fear of losing the strategies of life that have been developed over the centuries, which turn into canons, dogmas, and standards that are not subject to any changes. Traditionalism reduces culture as such to historical experience - everything that is outside this experience is evaluated either as anti-culture, that is, something abnormal, deviating from the norm, or as non-culture, that is, something that has nothing to do with human ways of being.

At the level of an individual, the idealization of historical experience inherent in traditional culture is always manifested by a certain rigidity of thinking, when new people are considered as twins of people who have already met before, new situations are qualified as copies of some past situations, respectively, the ways of solving problems, building certain relationships are always stereotyped. The total preoccupation of a person with historical experience incredibly narrows his worldview, reducing everything he sees and hears to some mythologized images stored in his memory, and everything that somehow does not coincide with them is simply discarded as insignificant. This phenomenon can be defined as a kind of cultural deja vu - the perception of the present as the past. It is this state that M. Eliade describes, arguing that archaic man endows with reality, significance and meaning only those objects and actions that are involved in sacred, mythological reality. The researcher points out that fundamental difference between man of archaic civilizations and modern man is that the latter gives everything great value“innovations”, which for a person of traditional culture were either an insignificant accident or a violation of the norm, therefore, a “mistake”, “sin”, due to which they should be periodically “expelled”, “abolished” .

Historical idealism is an extremely stable position, not only because, among other things, it is natural for a person to idealize the past, but also because this position does not require significant moral and intellectual efforts. F. Nietzsche metaphorically depicts this insurmountable dependence of man on the past: “... man ... is forever chained to the past; no matter how far and no matter how fast he runs, the chain runs with him. However, the idealization of historical experience in our continuously developing and changing world is futile - attempts to squeeze new content into the Procrustean bed of old forms sooner or later turn into self-destruction.

The nihilistic position in relation to historical experience is characterized by a focus on its denial, rejection. In its extreme manifestation, historical nihilism is expressed in the desire to consign to oblivion entire historical epochs as incorrect, erroneous. In this context, historical experience is understood as an unnecessary burden, as a vestige that burdens the existence of a person and society. One of the apologists for the nihilistic attitude to historical experience was Nietzsche, who believed that the excess of the “historical”, which turns a person into an epigone of the past, is a “historical disease”, one of the remedies for which is “non-historicism” - the art and ability to forget the past.

Nihilism is not identified with one or another type of culture; in its radical expression, it is by definition a marginal, finalist, decadent phenomenon, associated with a crisis, devaluation of established values, ideals, norms, and cultural decadence. Nihilism is an attribute of the inter-civilization era, when “the complete dismantling of the previous civilization” is carried out. At the same time, the nihilistic attitude to the world, in our opinion, is connected not with world denial, but with the denial of ideas that have historically developed in this or that society about the value foundations of the world, that is, ultimately, the denial of historical experience. This is how M. Heidegger understands the nihilistic attitude to the world: “Nihilism is the process of depreciation of the former supreme values. When these supreme values, which for the first time give value to all beings, depreciate, the being based on them loses its value. There is a feeling of worthlessness, insignificance of everything.

Nihilism is the decay, the disintegration of the value order that has developed in culture, the chaos of culture. Of course, from the nihilistic chaos may subsequently grow new order, therefore, nihilism can be considered as a kind of prerequisite for value creation, creativity, however, the latter lies already beyond the limits of nihilism. Of course, this point of view differs from those prevailing in philosophy, in particular from the point of view of F. Nietzsche, M. Heidegger, who see in “classical nihilism” a phenomenon associated not only with the denial of old values, but also with the establishment of new ones. Something similar can be found in modern researchers who distinguish between destructive and constructive nihilism and argue that nihilism is "a factor that transforms culture and society." However, if we follow strict logic, nihilism is a setting for negation, destruction, but not for affirmation and creation, there is no creative direction in it and cannot be. Indeed, in essence, historical nihilism is the negation of historical idealism, its antithesis. Historical experience in the nihilistic dimension appears as an anti-ideal, anti-value. At the same time, nihilism cannot be defined as nonsense - the denial of values does not lead to the formation of a semantic vacuum. On the contrary, through this denial, certain semantic units are formed that expand the existing ideas about the world, thereby pushing the boundaries of historical experience. Nihilistic negation creates a precedent for a critical attitude towards historical experience. Of course, this criticism can hardly be called constructive, moreover, it often does not contain an analytical, much less a reflexive attitude, however, it is in the space of a nihilistic attitude towards historical experience that a transition occurs from unconditional apology to criticism and partial revision of historical experience, its revision. F. Nietzsche writes about a critical attitude to history: “A person must possess and from time to time use the power to break and destroy the past in order to be able to live on; he achieves this goal by bringing the past to the judgment of history, subjecting the latter to the most thorough interrogation and, finally, pronouncing his sentence ... "

Nevertheless, historical nihilism in its radical form is socially unconstructive, since it makes a person and society completely unarmed in the face of emerging problems. The denial of historical experience turns the trial and error method into a universal strategy for solving problems, and this strategy is far from always effective. In addition, the frozen, hardened nihilistic chaos can turn into a kind of order that makes up the semantic fabric of being. At the level of society, this means reaching a dead end branch of evolution, that is, a social regression that turns society into a crowd.

The negativism inherent in nihilism is particularly prominent in the personal-psychological plane. For example, W. Reich defined nihilism as "character neurosis", "character armor" inherent in individuals of a pathological organization. Modern psychology interprets nihilism as one of the mechanisms of psychological defense - an unreflected attitude towards an accentuated denial of established socio-cultural norms, rules in order to demonstrate one's uniqueness. The denial of all authorities is a way of proving one's significance, a conscious or unconscious desire to satisfy the needs for respect from others, recognition, success, and appreciation. However, individual nihilism, unlike social nihilism, is more persistent and viable, since it is not nihilism in its purest form, it is founded by conscious or unconscious utilitarianism, since denial is not a goal for him, but a means of self-affirmation.

In essence, idealism and nihilism in relation to historical experience can be seen as two sides of the same coin. Historical idealism carries within itself a powerful charge of nihilism, since, by absolutizing the past, it rejects the present and the future. Historical nihilism, in turn, contains the potential of idealism, because, rejecting the past, it idealizes the present and the future. Accordingly, historical idealism and historical nihilism are polar positions that can inversely change places, that is, the idealization of historical experience is replaced by its nihilization and vice versa.

Historical realism is a middle position, “removing” the confrontation between historical idealism and historical nihilism, in relation to historical experience. The very logic of a realistic understanding of historical experience has a dialectical nature - realism is born as a result of the interpenetration of idealism and nihilism, their synthesis, while the synthesis is something more than a simple imposition of idealism and nihilism, it is an exit into a new value-semantic space, that is setting new values.

The realistic attitude to historical experience is characterized by the actualization of the critical-analytical approach to historical experience. The latter arises as a result of the development of reflection - "the ability of thinking to make thinking its subject" (K. Jaspers), that is, a special ability to rise above one's historical experience and look at it from a critical and analytical height. In this perspective, historical experience appears as the most important resource for the survival of society, which is used in the process of constructing effective life strategies. The main principle of this kind of construction is the principle of searching for some "golden mean", a measure between tradition and innovation, past and future, historical experience and modernity. Moreover, this search is not a one-time action, but a process directed towards the future. A. S. Akhiezer considers the criticism of historical experience as an aspect of history itself, associated with the revision of goals and conditions human development to change the subject of history, its reproductive functions. This kind of criticism, in his vision, is ultimately aimed at the driving forces of history, at mass activity, the culture corresponding to it, the level and scale of creativity.

Within the framework of a realistic attitude to historical experience, the notion of the opposition of the past, present, and future is “removed”. A realistic attitude to historical experience is inherent in a culture of a creative type, within which the world is comprehended as the highest value and goal of human creative activity. The worldview basis for this kind of worldview is set by the concept of the noosphere, within which human mind manifests itself as a creative force that changes the face of our planet and the nearest space, which is called upon to reconstruct the biosphere in the interests of the thinking majority.

This kind of worldview lies at the origins of a creative attitude to historical experience, which is seen not as a rigid structure that must be entered into or that must be destroyed, but as some kind of scaffolding that creates a support for creative creation, without which creativity would degenerate into empty, fruitless fantasizing. It seems that it is creative attitude F. R. Ankersmit preaches to historical experience, putting forward the concept of “sublime historical experience”. The latter, in his vision, is a paradoxical unity of remembering and forgetting, rejection and retention of the past: “The sublime character of historical experience comes from this paradoxical union of feelings of love and loss, that is, from a combination of pleasure and pain that determines our relationship to the past” .

On the personal-psychological plane, a creative attitude to historical experience is expressed primarily in an active position in relation to reality, and not in flight from it; in striving to study historical experience, and not in blind obedience to it; in the ability to solve emerging problems without resorting to various kinds of psychological defenses; finally, in the orientation towards personal growth and self-actualization. Self-actualization, according to A. Maslow, is the realization of the creative potential of the individual - her abilities, capabilities, talents, the achievement of personal maturity and psychological health. The concept of "creative culture" partly correlates with the concept of "prefigurative culture" introduced by M. Mead, who considers the latter as a culture oriented to the future, to the dialogue of generations, when not only young people learn from their elders, but also the older generation in all more listens to the youth.

So, historical idealism, historical nihilism, historical realism are a typological triad that can be considered as a tool for analyzing social consciousness, aimed at identifying the viability of a particular society, its potential for self-development, self-organization. In essence, the presence or absence in a particular society of a realistic attitude to historical experience is an important indicator of the ability of this society to self-development. Conversely, the fixation of society on an idealistic-nihilistic attitude to historical experience indicates social stagnation or even social regression. Of course, one should not forget that the historical experience of society is not reducible to collective historical experience - within the framework of collective historical experience there is an individual historical experience. The historical experience of a society is made up of the historical experience of its members, so it is not a homogeneous, but a heterogeneous formation. An example of this is the modern Russian society, whose historical memory and the very attitude to the historical past is heterogeneous. In modern Russian society, two positions prevail regarding the assessment of the past - historical idealism (“varnishing” attitude) and historical nihilism (defamatory attitude). This is especially true of the Soviet past: some consider the Soviet period "dark ages", wasted time, Soviet power - anti-people, totalitarian, practicing a policy of genocide in relation to its own people; others see the Soviet period as a "golden age", the Soviet power as the embodiment of humanity, social justice and freedom. Accordingly, some tend to be proud of the Soviet past, while others call for repentance for the "sins" committed during this period. Moreover, these positions can change places in an incredible way, while the dualism itself in assessing the past remains unchanged. Strictly speaking, the propensity of Russians to dualism in assessing various phenomena was noted by N. A. Berdyaev, who wrote a lot about the dualism of the Russian character and its detrimental effect on the historical fate of the people. He argued that the inconsistency inherent in the self-consciousness of Russians leads to the fact that Russia lives an "inorganic life", it lacks integrity and unity. And today Russia is often viewed as a divided society, and we are talking about an internal mental split, antinomy as a feature of the national character. Russia's main problem is the underdevelopment of the "middle culture". According to the definition of A. S. Akhiezer, “median culture” is “a cultural innovation, new meanings obtained as a result of mediation, as a result of overcoming the differences of the dual opposition in a comprehended subject, the search for a new measure between the meanings of the poles through the creative growth of a new content of culture, the exit beyond the initial opposition... All the new content of culture, new meanings are formed through the formulation of the molecules of culture, through the middle culture. The underdevelopment of the “middle culture” is manifested primarily in the lack of a realistic attitude to historical experience, the lack of reflection, and not only in the mass consciousness, but also in the ideas of the intellectual elite, which, among other things, may be inclined towards nihilistic or idealistic interpretations of history, following contextual considerations. In this regard, I. A. Gobozov’s remark that “many historians, for opportunistic reasons, begin to rewrite history, make a deal with their conscience, forget about the scientist’s code of honor, about scientific impartiality, distort facts, events, do everything to to please those in power. The works of such historians have no scientific value, but they serve the ruling circles, and they reward them accordingly.

The dualism of the historical consciousness of Russians, the underdevelopment of a realistic position in relation to the historical past makes it problematic to get out Russian society to new levels of its self-organization that meet the requirements of modernity. Overcoming the fixation on the idealistic-nihilistic perception of historical experience is ultimately a task that is simultaneously moral, political, economic, etc.

It seems that in its solution a special role belongs to the domestic intellectual, creative elite. For example, A.P. Davydov defines classical Russian literature as a significant enclave of the formation of an advanced “middle culture” in Russia, he considers the work of A.S. Pushkin as the beginning of understanding Russian history from the standpoint of “middle culture” . The role of representatives of Russian historical science in solving this problem is no less significant, since it is they who have a decisive voice in the processes of shaping the historical worldview of the masses: “Each nation forms a certain archetype throughout its history, and as long as this archetype exists, the people continue to live and work. . But the formation of an archetype is impossible without historical memory, and the availability of this memory largely depends on historians. If they present history as a chain of continuous mistakes and crimes of previous generations, then the new generation will form an exclusively negative attitude towards their own past. And this new generation will eventually dissolve into other peoples. Therefore, historians have a huge responsibility for the formation of a historical worldview.

Summing up our reasoning about historical experience, types of its perception, about the creative role of a realistic, but not idealistic or nihilistic perception of historical experience, we can state that historical experience, of course, is not a book. useful tips and not a guide to the labyrinths of being, rather it can be designated as knowledge, information about the general patterns of being of a particular people and humanity as a whole. This information is also valuable in that it, to one degree or another, contributes to paving the way for the future, opens up the possibility of its modeling. The latter seems to be extremely important, because “to predict at least to some extent the future means to be able to influence it. In fact, tomorrow the one who turns out to be the best futurologist will win. Of course, the modeling of the future is achievable only under the condition of a realistic attitude to historical experience. Only such an attitude towards him is the key to fulfillment main function historical experience as a socio-cultural institution - a function of ensuring the survival of the community.

See: Davydov A.P. “We are tormented by spiritual thirst”. A. S. Pushkin and the formation of the “middle culture” in Russia. - M., 1999.

Gobozov I. A. Decree. op. – P. 6.

Larin Yu. V. The problem of the future in the projection of human nature // Society and power. - 2012. - No. 2. - P. 119–123.

Grinin L. E. Russia - a philosophical power // Philosophy and Society. - 2005. - No. 3. - P. 199.

CULTURE AND SOCIETY

A. A. Radugin, O. A. Radugina Sociocultural Institute as an ideal construct of culture

This article aims to identify characteristics sociocultural institution as a construct of culture. To this end, on the basis of the concept of social ideal forms, the concept of "culture" is revealed, the main elements of a socio-cultural institution - values, mentality, ideology and tradition - are characterized.

The goal of the article is to identify the characteristic features of the sociocultural institution and to develop its scientific definition. In order to achieve it, the paper analyzes the notion of "social institution", discloses the notion of "culture" based on the concept of ideal social forms, and characterizes the primary elements of sociocultural institution: mentality, ideology and tradition.

Key words: social institution, ideal, social ideal forms, values, mentality, ideology, tradition, culture, socio-cultural institution.

Key words: social institution, ideal social forms, mentality, ideology, tradition, culture.

Culture is a multifaceted social phenomenon. The multicomponent nature of culture as a system and complex ambiguous relationships between its parts make it difficult to determine the interaction of the concept of "culture" with the concept of "sociocultural institution". The purpose of this article is to identify the characteristic features of a socio-cultural institution as an element of culture.

In order to identify the specifics of socio-cultural institutions, it is necessary to compare them with the concept of a social institution worked out in sociology. In our opinion, social institutions are an organized system of connections between people performing certain socially significant functions, ensuring the joint achievement of goals based on the social roles performed by members, set by social values, norms and patterns of behavior, and regulating people's behavior.

Each institution operates in a certain social space and field and performs its own characteristic social function. Depending on the social space and fields, as well as from the functions performed, various types of institutions are formed. The socio-cultural institute functions in the field of culture. Therefore, the backbone element in the concept of "sociocultural institution", in our opinion, is the concept of "culture". From a philosophical standpoint, culture is sometimes presented as a relatively independent social system, a sphere of society. We support those who believe that culture is not an independent social system and not a sphere of society. Culture in the broadest sense of the word is a specific quality of society that distinguishes it from other material systems and characterizes everything that has been created by mankind in the process of mastering the surrounding world. At the same time, culture is a specific aspect of the wealth created by man, thereby expressing the social value of material and spiritual goods produced by man. In existential expression, culture exists, first of all, as a category, and in this sense it is an ideal construct. This construct is “assembled” from a multitude of phenomena, traits, parameters, characteristics, features, abstracted from all elements of human existence: material things, knowledge, actions, relationships, emotions, feelings, etc. And this means that culture is not itself these things, materialized and objectified results of human actions, knowledge, cultural objects in themselves. Culture exists through these objects, objects, but cannot be directly identified with them. Culture can be known through them, but only because it is one of the sides, features of these objects (things), etc. In other words, culture designates in its bearers everything that arose in them outside of nature, “artificially” ( as a result of art), as a product of human activity, as artifacts that arose outside natural processes made by people. The existence of the cultural aspect of the systems created by human activity is possible only as a manifestation, the action of these features, sides, properties.

Culture is formed on the basis of spiritual production, during which objectified social ideal forms are produced, which are the basis of social interaction. The problem of objectified social ideal forms was formulated and developed by K. Marx for the first time in philosophy. In Marx's concept, social ideal forms are the result of social reflection. Social reflection is a universal property of social systems and is carried out on the basis of social interaction.

From the position of Marx, material relations arise as necessary, compulsory for individuals and society as a whole, activities and communication aimed at satisfying its human needs. Labor is the basis of material relations. Labor as a process of human interaction with nature is always a material-transforming activity: its content is the transformation of the natural qualities of matter in accordance with the intention and purpose of man. But in the process of labor activity, another, no less important action is performed. Along with the transformation of the natural qualities of matter, the creation of social qualities takes place. Social quality in social philosophy is interpreted as the functional quality of an object as a result of labor, it is the embodiment of human labor aimed at satisfying his needs. The very essence of an object as a result of labor is determined not by its natural material form, the natural qualities of matter in itself, but by its relation to a person, a service, functional role in society. The main meaning of human labor activity, according to K. Marx, is that the social subject pulls out important components from the natural environment, turns them into constituent part social life by giving in this process a natural substance external to it, but expedient and necessary for a person, a social form. The social form is that social quality which is created by human labor and which is objectified in its products as a social reality.

In this context, the social form is considered as an abstract characteristic of the product of human labor, associated with the ability of the latter to create a "second nature", the world of human culture. However, in social forms, a social quality of a different kind is also manifested, namely, the ability of a cultural object to be a carrier of social relations, to act as a necessary mediator in the exchange of activities and its results, in other words, to serve as an objectified means of communication between people, the crystallization of social relations. The discovery of this side of the products of labor belongs to K. Marx and follows from his teaching on the dual nature of labor.

As is known, the teaching of K. Marx on the dual nature of labor suggests that there are two sides to the processes of production of material goods. The first side is the process of production of objects to meet social needs, the creation of consumer values, the world of material culture. The second side is the creation process public relations and relationships. The social qualities of the first type are the result of specialized concrete labor. The social qualities of the second type are the result of labor in general, that is, universal labor, labor as an exchange of activity, labor as communication. According to K. Marx, su-

The essential aspect of human labor as social labor is the existence of one way or another to give individual results of labor of different qualities a single, uniform, objectively real social form, through which individual labor becomes social labor, i.e., labor-communication. This work is the substance of social relations. It is he who produces the means of interconnection between the individual and society - material social forms. Social forms of products of human activity act as means of human activity and communication. Through their movement, communication between individuals is carried out, social relations are formed.

Social relations always exist in subjective and objective forms: subjectively - as a living sensory activity and communication, objectively - in the form of objectified social activity and communication, i.e., in the form of movement of the “frozen” result of this activity. The social form is the form of the materiality of social relations. But it loses this meaning outside the interaction of the subjects of this activity. Therefore, in social relations, the objective must be considered in unity with the subjective, the frozen forms of human activity in unity with the living, because only within their framework does the product acquire and retain a social form, i.e., the status of an objective social reality.

In this regard, the social form cannot be considered only material form. The object as a social form always contains an ideal moment. Any result of human labor activity is nothing but the objectified goal of subjective activity, objectified consciousness. At the same time, it also includes the material moment, which in this case acts as the carrier of the ideal moment, its objectification, fixation. IN in a certain sense the social form is, in the words of K. Marx, "objectified mental form", it is an ideal form. Ideal, according to the definition of E. V. Ilyenkov, is nothing but a form of social human activity, presented as a thing, as an object. All objects of culture, in their way of existence, in their actual being, are material, material, but in their essence, in origin, they are ideal, because they embody collective thinking, the “universal spirit” of mankind. In the process of objectification, independence from the consciousness of individuals and from social relations is acquired not by ideas, but by material objects in which they are objectified. In order for a thought to reappear as a thought, it is necessary that these objects be reproduced in the minds of the people who perceive them, that they again become dependent on human consciousness and thus confirm their status as objective reality.

Ideality is a characteristic of materially fixed samples of social human culture, i.e., historically established ways of social human life, opposing the individual with his consciousness and will as a special "supernatural", objective reality, as a special object comparable to material reality, located with it in the same space. The ideal directly exists only as a form (method, image) of activity public man(i.e., a completely objective, material being), directed at the outside world. Therefore, if we talk about a material system, the function and mode of existence of which is the ideal, then this system is only a social person in unity with the objective world through which he carries out his specifically human life activity, i.e. culture. Ideality thus has a purely social nature, social background. The ideal is realized in various forms of social consciousness and the will of man as a subject of social production, material and spiritual life. On the basis of the foregoing, one can give the following definition of the ideal: the ideal is a universal way of being and the movement of culture in objectified forms of activity of a social person based on the relationship between material objects, within which one object acts as a representative of the universal nature of another object.

According to Marx, the phenomena of culture, which are predominantly in the ideal, mental, activity and other unformed spheres, must be rooted in recognizable states that would make them in a certain way embedded in a specific space and time, give them a procedural-ritualized character, and through them would be fixed. in the worldview, mentality of the individual and society. That is, culture in any case must be materialized, acquire social and generally significant forms, starting with the forms of the language, its vocabulary and syntactic structure, and ending with logical categories. Only when expressed in these forms does the external material become a social fact, the property of a social person, i.e., the ideal.

What is the relationship between the concepts social reflection' and 'public consciousness'? Social reflection, as noted above, occurs through spiritual and transformative activity, expresses in social reflection the moment of active development of reality, the epistemological aspect of social reflection. It is as a result of spiritual transformation that the products of social reflection appear - the ideal forms that form the social consciousness. In this regard, spiritual and transformative activity should be considered as a subsystem in the system of total human activity.

ness, the purpose and result of which is the development of ideal formations of social consciousness. Based on the foregoing, we can conclude that the concept of "social reflection" in a certain sense coincides with the concept of "public consciousness".

The close linkage of the concepts of "social reflection" and "social consciousness" allows us to conclude that the way of the movement of social consciousness in social systems is not ideas as such (representations, theories, views), but "objectified mental forms", social ideal forms. Social ideal forms act as a necessary mediator in the exchange of activities and their results. They serve, as has already been pointed out, as an objectified means of communication between people, a way of crystallizing social relations.

An essential role in socio-cultural institutions is played by such products of spiritual production as values, mentality and ideology. We share the concept of the socio-historical essence of values, according to which values have a social origin and organize the world of man and for man. The subject of cultural and historical creativity produces values. This subject in the cultural-historical process has a multi-level character. Without a doubt, individuals act as such a subject. But individuals participate in the cultural-historical process within the framework of supra-individual subjects - humanity, society, societies, large and small. social groups, as well as the socio-cultural institutions formed on their basis. These same subjects of cultural and historical creativity within the framework of the culture they create act as subjects of a value relationship. The value world of a person contains the imprint of each of these subjects, which is determined both by the nature of the intersubjective interaction of subjects of different levels, and by the characteristics of the needs and interests of each of these subjects. The mechanisms of its storage and transmission formed in culture provide an objective, that is, a generally significant and necessary nature of values. Based on the foregoing, we can give the following definition of values: values are an aspect of culture that expresses the significance and meaning for a particular subject of specific cultural phenomena.

Mentality plays an equally important role in culture. IN philosophical literature mentality means a deep level mass consciousness, what the representatives of historical-psychological and cultural-anthropological thought called a kind of "psychological equipment" of any social community, which allowed it to be perceived in its own way as environment, as well as themselves. This “psychological equipment” is manifested in the worldview and worldview characteristic of this community, which has an emotional, axiological and behavioral expression. Should agree with

the opinion that the mentality burdened with "psychological equipment" cannot be attributed to full-fledged spiritual formations, but is rather an informational chaotic "substratum" from which the elements of the spiritual sphere draw their content. The content of the mentality enters the "higher floors" of spiritual life in a transformed form, it seems to dissolve in the national character, in public opinion, in the forms of public consciousness, and finally, in the formations of the institutional level of spiritual production in the forms of archetypes, symbols, rhythms, likes or dislikes. etc. .

An important component Sociocultural Institute researchers consider ideology. In this perspective, sociologists characterize ideology as a system of ideas that is sanctioned by a set of norms. Based on a system of institutional norms, ideology determines not only how people should relate to this or that action, but also why they should act in a certain way and why they sometimes do not actively enough or do not participate in the action at all. Ideology includes both fundamental beliefs this institute and the development of beliefs that will explain surrounding reality in terms accepted by the members of the institution. Ideology gives him a rational justification for the application of institutional norms in everyday life. Thus, ideology is one of the most important cultural complexes that support the influence of a sociocultural institution, justify and explain all its activities.

One of important features sociocultural institution is that social interaction in its structures is carried out on the basis of tradition. Ontologically, a tradition for a member of society contains conservative, stable elements of his being, i.e. it is a repository of all accumulated knowledge, experience, customs, norms of the group to which he belongs, and this is what can and should be preserved in time and passed on to the next generations. Tradition is the main mechanism for transmitting social experience from generation to generation. In other words, tradition is "... it is a group experience expressed in socially organized stereotypes, which, through spatio-temporal transmission, is accumulated and reproduced in various human groups" . Max Weber defined tradition as “a mechanism for the reproduction of social institutions and norms, in which the maintenance of the latter is justified, legitimized by the very fact of their existence in the past. Traditional actions and relations are focused not on achieving a specific goal (which is typical for rational action) and not on the implementation of a specially fixed norm, but on repeating the past model. But this

1 Cited. according to the article by Levada Yu.A.

does not mean that tradition is “the power of the dead over the living” (K. Marx), since at the same time tradition can be presented as a mechanism for changing societies, or, paraphrasing the aphorism of K. Marx, one can say: “tradition is the power of the living over the dead ". Tradition is connected with the present, it is transmitted by the present, and the present determines the relevance of the past. In this sense, any system of traditions is built on a modern foundation, which itself is built on a constantly renewed past. It is the present that sets the appeal to the past, based on the axiological significance of continuity and cultural unity as characteristics of tradition. Tradition as a system of patterns that enhances the cohesion and self-awareness of the society that created it, exists in the very practice of everyday life, regardless of the degree of awareness of the mechanism of creation and action of these patterns. The meaning of tradition is reduced to the preservation of the inheritance, to the observance of the necessary measures so that the inheritance does not lose those stable properties that determine its natural purpose.

Tradition is inextricably linked with the social group, ethnic and national mentality. Each ethnic group or people, being not only a biological unit, a “phenomenon of the biosphere”, but also a psychophysical individuality that has been developing in interaction with the natural environment for thousands of years “... with its own system of language and the attitude of the world embodied in the forms of its life”, develops its own national traditions and legends . In social-group and ethnic, and national traditions are fixed various aspects historically developed collective identity: basic life relations, a system of ideas and beliefs, various landmarks in historical and social action. The most important forms of the mechanism of tradition are the institutions of upbringing and education.

Based on the foregoing, we can give the following definition of a sociocultural institution: a sociocultural institution is a construct of culture that functions over the life of a number of generations, which is based on a commonality of values, mentality, ideology, transmitted from generation to generation by the mechanisms of tradition and performing the functions of socialization, mobilization and organization of social and spiritual energy of its members.

Bibliography

1. Bessmertny Yu.L. History at a crossroads. - M., 1993.

2. Gumilyov M. N. Biography of scientific theory, or auto-obituary // Znamya. - 1988. - No. 4.

3. Zakharchenko M.V. Cultural and historical tradition. - URL: http: // www.portal-slovo.ru/pedagogy/379222.php.

4. Ilyenkov E.V. Ideal // Philosopher. encycl.: in 5 vols. Vol. 2 / ch. ed. F. V. Konstantinov. - M., 1962.

5. Ilyenkov E.V. The problem of the ideal // Vopr. philosophy. - No. 7. -S. 145-158.

6. Levada Yu.A. Traditions // Philosopher. encycle. - T.5. - M., 1970.

7. Markaryan E.S. Nodal points of the theory problem cultural tradition// Owls. ethnography. - 1981. - No. 2.

8. Mechanisms of culture formation in Latin America. - M., 1994.

9. Trubetskoy N.S. Legacy of Genghis Khan. - M., 1999.

Today, many see the museum as a center of information, Cultural Center, the center of scientific and artistic life, as a meeting place for various age, social, professional or ethnic groups, for each of which a visit to the museum has its own specific meaning, which is not always reduced to educational. The museum has ceased to be isolated within its walls and is trying to spread its influence beyond the territory allotted to it, proving its significance. The beginning of the process of changing the social role of the museum, restructuring the forms and methods of work aimed at increasing the effectiveness of the museum's interaction with society is noticeable.

Modern museological thought has developed a number of definitions of the museum, most of which interpret it as a social institution (in the sense of an institution) with inherent social functions.

The federal law “On the Museum Fund of the Russian Federation and museums in the Russian Federation” states: “A museum is a non-profit cultural institution created by the owner for the storage, study and public presentation of museum objects and museum collections ... Museums in the Russian Federation are created in the form of institutions for the implementation of cultural , educational and scientific functions non-commercial nature." The museum is one of the objects of culture, reflecting the cultural realities of a certain historical era, and at the same time a means of shaping culture.

Museums that are custodians cultural heritage interact directly with society. Being social and cultural institutions of society, museums "unite" generations of people, their spirituality, dignity, and patriotism through sociocultural processes.

The museum is both a research and cultural and educational institution, a socio-cultural institute.

The museum, as a socio-cultural institution, arises in a society that is at a high level of social and cultural development. The intensive development of the museum is subject to the versatile support of the state or persons in power. The emergence and development of the museum is due to the presence of social needs. The appearance of museums is preceded by a large collection and gathering activity of individuals, societies and social groups.

The museum serves as a means of intercultural communication. A visit to a museum, museum communication coincides with the purpose of its creation and development: it is direct communication with historical and cultural monuments and communication between people about their perception, understanding and interpretation of past historical eras through a museum object. Studies of the features of museum communication with the audience, developed within the framework of various approaches of museological theory (institutional or structural-functional approach), can be perfectly complemented by two new planes of consideration that have appeared in the last twenty years in the structural-functional studies of museums. We are talking about the study of recreational aspects of the functioning of museums and socio-cultural regulation. Both directions are connected with the theoretical understanding of new functions that have appeared in the activity contemporary museums, a significant part of which becomes multifunctional cultural and leisure centers.

The museum, having largely moved away from the model of purposeful formation of knowledge, value preferences and even the personality of visitors, is beginning to increasingly satisfy the diverse needs of the museum audience and, as a result, is becoming a multifunctional cultural center.

The modern museum as a relatively stable element sociocultural life Society has gone through a long period of institutionalization, during which there was an interaction of three social groups: the owners of museum values, museum professionals and the public. The characteristics of these groups left their mark on the specifics of their activities and determined historical forms organization of museums - personal, corporate and state.

All these forms are united by the presence common features: This museum objects and their collections as a backbone in the "organism" of the museum; this is a circle of persons entering into a certain kind of relationship in the process of the functioning of the museum, which acquire a stable character; these are socially significant functions related both to the satisfaction of specific socio-cultural needs of a person, and to the organization of the subject-substantive activities of the institution.

Acting as a specific means of communication, museums, belonging to any form of organization, invite the modern visitor to perceive historical spaces and various exhibits, to comprehend the incalculable riches of human experience and think about what is perceived, about what is known, etc.